Yes, this is a complicated area to interpret; for the skeptical take on whether departments are losing money, focusing on some accounting practices, hereâs an article from a sports economist:
Hereâs another article on common misconceptions about athletic department accounting: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2017/06/12/the-biggest-misconceptions-about-the-finances-of-college-sports/
Aside from last yearâs core 6, who starts at least one game this season? Pick as many as you like
Cant remember which one is Mick and which one is Fish.. but McKneely and BVP is how Iâd vote
Edit: nvm, Iâm dumb. Mick = McKneely, Traudt = Fish (get it? 
)
Man I hate those nicknames. If it is just low key hazing for rookies fine. But should never stick long term
Seems like it was probably just pragmatism. But I see where youâre youâre coming from
Looking up pragmatismâŚ
One should be Eyes and the other one should be Zack
We got âem an NIL opportunity down here
Maybe one can be called Sarah and the other Abraham
Traudt could go by Braskypants
We had amazing nicknames. Lemme try and recount my last year in no particular order:
C, Big Poon, TJ, Dos Dos, Ford, Fresh, YB, Havel, Big Red, Big Chris, Bobby Big House, And I know I am missing someone
You had a guy named big poon and you think mick and fish are too harsh? 
We sometimes called June Big Poone. Term of endearment
Dept. of Shitty Nicknames: Ryan Dunn (RD) = Road. Leon Bond (LB) = Pound.
Two things:
Takeaways: seems to be a consensus that McKneely and BVP will start at some point, Traudt and Taine probably will not, and itâs unlikely Bond and Dunn will.
Iâm still not so sure. My feeling on the TJP recruitment once Duke entered was that (a) it was going to be tough to beat Duke (and UNC, and UCLA, etc.), and (b) if it happened it would happen because TJP bought into the development angle over the showcase angle. But whatâs missing? In terms of obvious PT early in his career, I kind of think that we and Duke were not so different. So what if the Duke v. UVa angle was more like, âschool I already really liked WITH obvious PT opportunities right awayâ vs. âshowcase school where I have to have an immense amount of confidence that I can get on the floorâ. I think the obvious PT was something that could have been a more effective counterweight. Would it have swayed him to us? Who knows⌠but Iâm not saying it would. Iâm just saying it would make us much more attractive.**
Also, I want to be clear, I am super happy that Dunn and Bond are here (Iâm higher on both of them than most, I think), and Iâm really super happy that Traudt is here. And I wouldâve taken those âbirds in the handâ over holding the scholly, esp. since Dunn was the only one who was really borderline top 100 (and therefore the best comparison to the GW3 decision).
** Tangent on my tangent, but one of the reasons I dislike the redshirt, and generally like early PT for younger, higher ceiling guys, over older, lower ceiling guys, is that I think early PT for good players is something that we should be able to sell on the recruiting rail. How you decide to run your program is recruiting.
BVP is a no brainer⌠heâll get senior night unless he opts out.
I think this is a great point and also a place where itâs reasonable to have differing views on how this should play out in practice. An alternative viewpoint is that when you are selling development, youâre selling the vision of come in, pay your dues early in your career, and then when after you do that, youâll be in a good position to shine in the opportunity that you have. If a guy comes in and does that, and then doesnât play much in the 3rd year because a 1st year is perceived to have a higher potential*, that undermines that pitch. Playing guys early has benefits in other ways, but itâs not cost-free in my view.
*assuming here that the older player is more productive/contributes to winning that season.
But I do think it is very reasonable to have different viewpoints on this, and how you come down this probably should hinge on the specific players involved and team context around them.
Yeah, I agree. There is a balance. This is an oversimplification, but one way to thread the needle is when you have that dilemma (which, IMO, we probably have this coming year), you spread out PT generously, especially early on.
For me itâs simple ⌠whoever plays better will play more ⌠and when I say better - net better on both ends⌠enough of the non-sensical defense performance only football mentality.
